Hello Pders,
I just wanted to pick up where Alex left off and provide some more
statistics regarding gender balance in the papers sessions. Here are
some raw and slightly warmed-over stats:
===
Number of submissions received for the papers sessions :
44*
Number of submissions received for the papers sessions from men:
41**
or
42**
Number of submissions received for the papers sessions from women:
3**
or
2**
Percentage of submissions from women as a percentage of the whole:
3 / 44 * 100 = 6.81%
or
2 / 44 * 100 = 4.54%
*(the count actually went to 46, but two were just tests)
**(this is based on the name of the listed principal author, and
there is one name I am not sure about, I show the numbers for both
possible cases.)
===
Number of submissions which were accepted:
26
Percentage of submissions which were accepted as a percentage of the
whole:
26 / 44 * 100 = 59.09%
Number of submissions from women which were accepted:
2
Percentage of submissions from women which were accepted:
2 / 3 * 100 = 66.6%
or
2 / 2 * 100 = 100%
Number of women who were accepted and who did attend and present at
PdCon:
1
===
One of the clearly agreed and accepted principles shared by all
members of the executive and steering committees for PdCon was that
we wanted to enable - as much as possible - the participation of
women, minorities and people from outside of the euro-centric
mainstream.
Given those precepts, we did our best with what we had to work from.
Were we successful? I'll leave that for others to judge.
It is clear, in any case, that for these sorts of gatherings in the
Pd community, there is still a long way to go.
As an old "gauchiste", I have always believed that the ultimate goal
for human society was for all people to be considered and treated as
equals - in all aspects of life.
I also always understood the notion of "Politically Correct'" - a
critical term which originated in the left, but has now been co-opted
by the right - to indicate the tendency, of some, to be more
interested in linguistic semantics than material reality.
I am interested in material reality.
I am interested in seeing redress, actual material change - in our
society, in our world - for those who have been materially
disfavoured. I do what I can to help that process along.
At the same time, there are real differences between women and men.
There is no point trying to minimise those differences.
Women are equal, but different.
What a beautiful difference.
Andrew
On 21-Oct-07, at 8:25 PM, pd-list-request at iem.at wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:13:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Alexandre Castonguay" <acastonguay at artengine.ca>
> Subject: Re: [PD] [OT] Re: about sexism is TERMINATE THREAD PLEASE
> To: ydegoyon at free.fr> Cc: pd-list at iem.at> Message-ID: <61802.137.122.128.159.1192983231.squirrel at artengine.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>> Hi all, Yves,
>> Here are some facts may help explain and paint a correct picture of
> the
> convention's gender distribution.
>> Number of applications received for the exhibition component :
>> 9 (F)
> 26 (M)
>> Invitations sent :
>> 6 (F)
> 12 (M)
>> Number of applications for performances (* I am unsure as to the
> gender of
> one applicant as we didn't ask people to specify it in their
> application.)
>> 3 (F)
> 32 (M)
>> Invitations sent :
>> 2 (F)
> 18 (M)
>> As Andrew Brouse noted, the applications for papers did not carry the
> author's names so it makes it hard to get a picture of the gender
> breakdown. Out of 46 'papers invitations', 2 were extended to women
> and I
> believe that may unfortunately be the number of applicants? Andrew
> may be
> able to answer to that.
>> I believe that the impression Yves got is justified. It is just
> that the
> community is overwhelmingly male and 'white' (another thread!). It
> also
> seems that the juries for the papers, exhibition and performances were
> conscious of the fact as it is somewhat reflected in the final
> breakdown
> of invitations sent.
>> Some observations on other parts of this long thread that may yet
> yield
> something positive.
>> * The component of the convention that had the highest
> representation of
> women applicants was the exhibition. It shows that this form of
> contribution is often the way through which women enter the
> community. It
> should be maintained and expanded through other conventions.
>> * I heard through the application process that some women were
> intimidated
> by the perceived technological sophistication of the pd scene and
> thought
> that their work may not be 'pure' enough to warrant an application. In
> that light, dismissing people whose work process calls on external
> expertise to be realized does not help with that perception of purity.
>> * I am personally glad that our efforts of providing better
> documentation
> and access to the software got a renewed push through the work
> groups and
> discussions happening at the convention.
>> * Building a more representative community will take time and many
> more
> pd-conventions, workshops, efforts through documentation and
> packaging,
> participating in long email threads and chats. Let's keep in mind
> that
> most of us take part in these efforts because we believe we can
> make the
> community more inclusive, make good work and have fun while doing it.
>> A bientot,
>> Alexandre
>>>>>> On Friday 19 October 2007 08:24:26 ydegoyon at free.fr wrote:
>> ola,
>>>>> Honestly I wasn't even sure this sevy was really Yves, and for that
>>> matter I know nothing about Yves. As I said- the original
>>> statement was
>>> completely untrue; and the original poster hasn't responded to
>>> that fact.
>>> I honestly did not believe the subject was a problem on this list.
>>>> wrong! i sent this after reading 'wettest dream' in a mail from 2
>> weeks
>> ago, but anyway it was 2 years or more that this was going on,
>> and was also a general feeling from pd convention
>> ( seems work groups were only constituted of men ),
>> too bad some people speaking here were not there.